Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El mié, 11-09-2013 a las 11:41 +0200, Olav Vitters escribió: [...] > > * We maintain networkmanager and bluetooth support optional, and this > > has been the case since 3.2 iirc even though upstream flat out refuses > > to merge our perfectly fine patches > > Feel free to cc release-t...@gnome.org on such patches. I am not saying > something would change, however, Bluetooth is optional in gnome-shell > (though in 3.9.x it crashed if you disabled it). Seems a bit strange to > have it optional in one place, forced in another. > Upstream (I think most Bastien) strongly refuses to include that patches, should we send you via mail to release team? (I can try to find the bugs again and CC you there, but you will only see those closed as WONTFIX because we aren't supposed to disable that support (colord, networkmanager, kerberos...) [...] > Intention was not to force systemd. It just seems to have ended up that > way. The various times I asked there has been a lot of work going on > into supporting non-systemd configurations as changes are made. However, > that work is mostly untested and likely buggy (things needs to be used). > I thought the work was good enough (though knew that Debian would go > with requiring systemd as a dependency) It's "de facto" forced, otherwise, gdm cannot be stopped properly (until cgroups support is not implemented in other RCs alternatives), power management support is lost... > > It seems that for Wayland support we somehow do need to require logind > (I forgot why exactly, though I do have IRC logs somewhere). At the > moment that seems unlikely to change. I'm planning to write a proper > message about this to distributor-list. Then, it will also need systemd to be running as systemd >= 205 cannot have logind working alone. > Most of the development was done within ConsoleKit, now mostly done > within systemd. It would be nice if the logind part was optional like it > was initially, but I don't know if that would still be a no-go for > Gentoo. E.g. does it have to be ConsoleKit, or is a logind also ok? Note > that Ubuntu is going with Qt, so I don't expect them to do much > development on keeping logind separate from systemd. Ubuntu people made a huge effort to let logind work with Upstart running, but that will only work for <=204 version.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
[ Apologies for replying so late I am not intending to startup the discussion regarding systemd ] On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:36:47AM +0200, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > For the record we did and still do support setups that upstream does not > care about. > * In the past, we had policykit/polkit optional, we had to stop that > since it is now too tied in to be decently maintained at our level > * We had pulseaudio optional, again, this is now over in some of the > core components of Gnome, but we do keep it optional were possible > * We maintain networkmanager and bluetooth support optional, and this > has been the case since 3.2 iirc even though upstream flat out refuses > to merge our perfectly fine patches Feel free to cc release-t...@gnome.org on such patches. I am not saying something would change, however, Bluetooth is optional in gnome-shell (though in 3.9.x it crashed if you disabled it). Seems a bit strange to have it optional in one place, forced in another. > Keeping systemd optional in Gnome cannot be achieved by the Gentoo Gnome > team. If someone comes up with a solution to have logind without > systemd, we will gladly include it but remember that a few devs (4/5 > afaik) already tried and sadly failed. Intention was not to force systemd. It just seems to have ended up that way. The various times I asked there has been a lot of work going on into supporting non-systemd configurations as changes are made. However, that work is mostly untested and likely buggy (things needs to be used). I thought the work was good enough (though knew that Debian would go with requiring systemd as a dependency) It seems that for Wayland support we somehow do need to require logind (I forgot why exactly, though I do have IRC logs somewhere). At the moment that seems unlikely to change. I'm planning to write a proper message about this to distributor-list. As development goes on, more and more does indeed depend on systemd. However, if I look at http://cgit.freedesktop.org/ConsoleKit/log/, most of the development was made by people involved in GNOME. There are no recent development for at least 1.5 year. The intention is not to force things, but seems rather logical the way it ends up. Most of the development was done within ConsoleKit, now mostly done within systemd. It would be nice if the logind part was optional like it was initially, but I don't know if that would still be a no-go for Gentoo. E.g. does it have to be ConsoleKit, or is a logind also ok? Note that Ubuntu is going with Qt, so I don't expect them to do much development on keeping logind separate from systemd. It seems a bit weird that although work is done to ensure systemd is optional, in the end just a systemd dependency is taken (Debian, Gentoo). ---> Not trying to start this up again. <--- -- Regards, Olav
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:40:00PM +0100, Mike Auty wrote > So there's lots of people that don't want systemd. Can't we group > together and have some kind of an affect on upstream? The answer is... probably not, given the "My way or the Highway" attitude of the GNOME developers. GNOME users who are unhappy about systemd, are being forced to choose... * either they run GNU/Linu-x * or else they run GNOME/Lenna-x ...pick 1 of the above. > Is there some way, we as the Gentoo Foundation, Developers or even > just Users can form a petition, or an open letter, that might make > enough impact on the Gnome foundation for them to reconsider their > position? Again, no, they haven't listened to end users in the past, and they will not listen to end users now. Even more so if you're a Gentoo-Build-It-All-Myself-Because-It-Is-So-Much-Faster-And-Need-To-Reinvent-The-Wheel-Daily-And-Configurating-Things-Is-Awesome-Guy http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2009/06/0191.html > Perhaps if there were an "init system specification" project, separate > from systemd, that systemd had to adhere to rather than deciding to > change the rules at a random version (like 205), then Gnome could > potentially have other options than just systemd? Again, how do you force a rogue upstream development team to follow *YOUR* rules? Answer; you can't. If you want GNOME-like "goodness", consider Cinnamon/Consort/Mate/Kate/etc/etc. I'm a neutral observer of this entire mess... see my sig. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:19:26PM -0700, Greg KH wrote > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:40:00PM +0100, Mike Auty wrote: > > On 08/08/13 11:38, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > i'm not volunteering but I never really got why our GNOME > > > maintainers insisted on staying with it instead of going with the > > > distribution after it was clear logind is a dead end on non-systemd > > > systemd > > > > Ok, > > > > So there's lots of people that don't want systemd. Can't we group > > together and have some kind of an affect on upstream? > > Become upstream developers and create fixes to remove the dependancy > either by working on openrc features to emulate the same things that > systemd has that GNOME requires, or split things out of GNOME so that it > does not require systemd dependencies. > > But to complain to upstream without providing patches is a bit futile, > don't you think? That's not how open source projects work, we all know > that. > > greg k-h > > -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with USE="systemd" > and use of 'if' and 'else' plus creating virtual/systemd for proper / > installation and some other minor, but bad design choices done in the > systemd packaging What is the consensus of the systemd team regarding those choices? Would it make more sense to just fix the packaging rather than forking it? I'm not sure what all the issues are, or how widespread the disagreement is. As far as installation in / vs /usr goes - that seems like something that could be made configurable in the systemd package. I believe others have been wondering if an optional usr-move config setting of some kind (might or might not be a USE flag) would be useful. The profile default would be for things to stay as they are, but those who want to do a move could set the flag. That is worth some further discussion before implementing it - it might also make sense to install compatibility symlinks in / when using it unless it is detected that / already contains symlinks (individual symlinks is not how Fedora is proposing handling the move, but I would think that it would work and it has the virtue of letting users migrate bit by bit until / is empty and they can replace the root dirs with symlinks). Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El dom, 11-08-2013 a las 08:41 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: >> On 09/08/13 12:51, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> > El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn >> > escribió: >> >> Pacho Ramos schrieb: >> If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept >> ebuild >> patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd >> again? >> Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome >> team >> supports. >> >>> >> >>> We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we >> >>> don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working >> >>> properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling >> >> >> >> I don't say that it should be the default. >> >> >> >>> Also, if that people reports problems, we would >> >>> close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd >> >> >> >> That's what I meant when I wrote not a configuration that Gnome team >> >> supports. >> >> >> >>> - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving >> >>> from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd >> >>> as device manager >> >>> - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev >> >> >> >> The good part about package.provided is that users definitely know that >> >> they >> >> are running an unsupported configuration with it. The bad part is that >> >> putting systemd in package.provided is a bit dangerous, as this can lead >> >> to >> >> udev unmerge on depclean if you are not careful. >> >> >> > >> > This makes me think what is the problem with people moving to systemd as >> > udev provider (even running openrc) :/ >> >> Because sys-apps/systemd is installed in wrong directory structure in /usr >> I still carry systemd in my local overlay instead of using it from >> Portage, just to put it in / as per upstream recommendation :-/ >> We have tried to reach consensus, but there is a disagreement that we >> have left at "We agree that we don't agree." >> >> Pushing that aside, there is also the heavy dependencies of >> sys-apps/systemd in comparison to sys-fs/udev >> > > Maybe the second point could be solved having some kind of "minimal" USE > flag for systemd building it with only the minimum set for running udev > without adding so many dependencies. Regarding the first issue, I have > also seen that will be nearly impossible to reach a consensus because we > are currently in a strange intermediate situation: we don't have a setup > ready to run without /usr but neither /usr merge work :| > > Then, I guess will have to live with this two alternatives more time :/, > but people running Gnome will need to keep /usr mounted and, then, they > won't suffer the first problem of place installation. systemd doesn't support separated /usr without an initramfs, so there is no problem now that GNOME requires it. > Also, the extra > dependencies won't be so "extra" for gnome users, letting them to move > to systemd ebuild easily And there is that. Although the only hard (runtime) dependencies of systemd-206-r3 are: sys-apps/dbus sys-apps/util-linux sys-libs/libcap sys-apps/baselayout sys-apps/hwids Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 11/08/13 10:31, Pacho Ramos wrote: El dom, 11-08-2013 a las 08:41 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: On 09/08/13 12:51, Pacho Ramos wrote: El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn escribió: Pacho Ramos schrieb: If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome team supports. We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling I don't say that it should be the default. Also, if that people reports problems, we would close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd That's what I meant when I wrote not a configuration that Gnome team supports. - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd as device manager - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev The good part about package.provided is that users definitely know that they are running an unsupported configuration with it. The bad part is that putting systemd in package.provided is a bit dangerous, as this can lead to udev unmerge on depclean if you are not careful. This makes me think what is the problem with people moving to systemd as udev provider (even running openrc) :/ Because sys-apps/systemd is installed in wrong directory structure in /usr I still carry systemd in my local overlay instead of using it from Portage, just to put it in / as per upstream recommendation :-/ We have tried to reach consensus, but there is a disagreement that we have left at "We agree that we don't agree." Pushing that aside, there is also the heavy dependencies of sys-apps/systemd in comparison to sys-fs/udev Maybe the second point could be solved having some kind of "minimal" USE flag for systemd building it with only the minimum set for running udev without adding so many dependencies. Regarding the first issue, I have also seen that will be nearly impossible to reach a consensus because we are currently in a strange intermediate situation: we don't have a setup ready to run without /usr but neither /usr merge work :| Then, I guess will have to live with this two alternatives more time :/, but people running Gnome will need to keep /usr mounted and, then, they won't suffer the first problem of place installation. Also, the extra dependencies won't be so "extra" for gnome users, letting them to move to systemd ebuild easily I'm propably opening a can of worms here but... I've been considering packaging systemd in sys-fs/udev with USE="systemd" and use of 'if' and 'else' plus creating virtual/systemd for proper / installation and some other minor, but bad design choices done in the systemd packaging Previously, which isn't really true anymore because logind without systemd is a dead end, there was also a reasoning of packaging logind, and this type of packaging would have reduced the ebuild number to just 'udev', from 'udev, logind, systemd' since it's all from the same tarball But now, the reason I haven't gone forward with it, is that I'm still maintaining too much OpenRC related software that systemd has made 'deprecated' and I need OpenRC based system to be able to do that, and using VM, dualboot or second machine for that is creating too much overhead for my limited time As in, I haven't made the final switch to systemd yet as a primary init system on the main development machine which I consider a prereq for packaging it, thus I'm keeping my hands off it and stick to the overlay So with that said, I'm committed to keeping sys-fs/udev maintained and the default for long as sys-apps/openrc is the default If sys-fs/udev ever stops working without systemd, I'll maintain a minimal patchset that reverts those changes, and if that becomes unsustainable, we might consider forking it, but thistype of speculation is far in the future (and the reason why sys-fs/eudev at this early stage is stupid) - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El dom, 11-08-2013 a las 08:41 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: > On 09/08/13 12:51, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > > escribió: > >> Pacho Ramos schrieb: > If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept > ebuild > patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? > Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome > team > supports. > >>> > >>> We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we > >>> don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working > >>> properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling > >> > >> I don't say that it should be the default. > >> > >>> Also, if that people reports problems, we would > >>> close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd > >> > >> That's what I meant when I wrote not a configuration that Gnome team > >> supports. > >> > >>> - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving > >>> from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd > >>> as device manager > >>> - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev > >> > >> The good part about package.provided is that users definitely know that > >> they > >> are running an unsupported configuration with it. The bad part is that > >> putting systemd in package.provided is a bit dangerous, as this can lead to > >> udev unmerge on depclean if you are not careful. > >> > > > > This makes me think what is the problem with people moving to systemd as > > udev provider (even running openrc) :/ > > Because sys-apps/systemd is installed in wrong directory structure in /usr > I still carry systemd in my local overlay instead of using it from > Portage, just to put it in / as per upstream recommendation :-/ > We have tried to reach consensus, but there is a disagreement that we > have left at "We agree that we don't agree." > > Pushing that aside, there is also the heavy dependencies of > sys-apps/systemd in comparison to sys-fs/udev > Maybe the second point could be solved having some kind of "minimal" USE flag for systemd building it with only the minimum set for running udev without adding so many dependencies. Regarding the first issue, I have also seen that will be nearly impossible to reach a consensus because we are currently in a strange intermediate situation: we don't have a setup ready to run without /usr but neither /usr merge work :| Then, I guess will have to live with this two alternatives more time :/, but people running Gnome will need to keep /usr mounted and, then, they won't suffer the first problem of place installation. Also, the extra dependencies won't be so "extra" for gnome users, letting them to move to systemd ebuild easily
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 12:51, Pacho Ramos wrote: El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn escribió: Pacho Ramos schrieb: If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome team supports. We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling I don't say that it should be the default. Also, if that people reports problems, we would close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd That's what I meant when I wrote not a configuration that Gnome team supports. - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd as device manager - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev The good part about package.provided is that users definitely know that they are running an unsupported configuration with it. The bad part is that putting systemd in package.provided is a bit dangerous, as this can lead to udev unmerge on depclean if you are not careful. This makes me think what is the problem with people moving to systemd as udev provider (even running openrc) :/ Because sys-apps/systemd is installed in wrong directory structure in /usr I still carry systemd in my local overlay instead of using it from Portage, just to put it in / as per upstream recommendation :-/ We have tried to reach consensus, but there is a disagreement that we have left at "We agree that we don't agree." Pushing that aside, there is also the heavy dependencies of sys-apps/systemd in comparison to sys-fs/udev 1. The first solution (moving to systemd as udev provider) would be "easy" and would behave as bad as openBSD does (having the unsupported and mid working setup) 2. About the other one: probably somebody adding systemd to package.provide *on purpose* will remember to know that he needs a device manager (either udev or eudev) and don't let depclean remove it :| Other possible solution would be the following: 3. Add a "openrc-force" USE flag to offending packages. This USE flag would be masked in all profiles, needing users to unmask it locally (the packages would warn about it when enabling and so)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Mike Auty wrote: > Just because companies pour money into something does not mean they > know what they're doing, or that they've done their market research > into what their users want. I've tried several of the forks, and > sadly Gnome, because of the backing it's had, hangs together as a > Desktop Environment the best which is precisely why it's so > disappointing they've chosen this strong a demand of their users. Sounds like a complaint many have had about Unity. In the case of Ubuntu they decided that the typical linux user of the past was not the target market for the user of the future. In the case of Gnome there is no market - volunteer-based FOSS communities tend to be bound by common values and they pursue those values regardless of whether it grows the community. If I suggested that binary distros are far more popular therefore Gentoo should become one, I doubt that anybody would take it as anything but a joke. What we think is great in a distro and what the average Debian user thinks is great is bound to be different. That's basically how the Gnome devs feel - they're pursuing what they feel is the best solution. Whether anybody else uses it is a secondary concern for them. They probably will aim to make it as usable to newcomers as they can, as far as they see usability. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 11/08/13 00:45, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > They thought deeply about the changes that are being made to the > desktop, and they discussed it and reached a consensus about what > the direction of the project is; you can usually read about in the > mailing lists, Planet GNOME, or even watch the videos from the > GUADEC presentations. You can of course disagree with that > direction: but acting like they, poor things, don't know what they > are doing and need that someone go an tell them so they can know > "before the damage is much to repair", is quite condescending. I'm not trying to be condescending and I'm not suggesting they don't know what they're doing. If I were to suggest it, doing so on a Gentoo thread about stabilization would be futile. The only reason I'm responding on here is to find out from others in my community if there's a place that people are collecting their opinions such that it might be heard/discussed by the people at Gnome. > People have been predicting the dead of GNOME since before the 1.0 > version came out, but right now it has more contributors than ever > in the past, and at least half a dozen companies actually pay money > to people to work in it, so perhaps they actually know what they > are doing. But even if they don't, there are a couple forks you can > try or several alternatives you can switch to if "the damage is too > much to repair". Just because companies pour money into something does not mean they know what they're doing, or that they've done their market research into what their users want. I've tried several of the forks, and sadly Gnome, because of the backing it's had, hangs together as a Desktop Environment the best which is precisely why it's so disappointing they've chosen this strong a demand of their users. I have even tried systemd, which realized rather than allayed my fears, but this isn't the place for my personal experiences with that. I'm interested in solutions, specifically to get the most out of Gnome without being forced to make changes lower down my system's stack. If necessary, I'd at least like to have a logind that works distinct from systemd, according to a well defined specification that can be created separate to any one implementation (like the PMS provided for package managers), and ask Gnome to work to that specification. Until systemd-205, that was possible. The fact that systemd has the power to remove that ability in a single version bump, and did so without thought for the impact on Gnome, should be worrying to Gnome for the future, not just to the users that were affected now. The hope for a clear specification that can't be changed or dictated by a single implementation feels like a fair compromise, but unless I know where to suggest that, or where it has already been suggested, it won't help in the slightest. > And at the end of the day, all that code is 100% Free Software, > with public repositories with all the history of the components of > the project for all the world to see and use. I've already addressed how this doesn't help those who contribute to open source software, but don't have the skills to manage such a large and important project. > The GNOME developers already made their decision. The GNOME > maintainers in Gentoo followed through (like they have been doing > in almost every other distro). Now it's up to each user to decide > if she keeps using GNOME (and therefore switches, if necessary, to > systemd since 3.8), or if she stops using it. > > Arguing about it is quite useless. Having read my emails, you'll have seen that I haven't been arguing, I've been expressing a desire to collect together those who disagree with the decision and communicate it such that the decision might get discussed publicly. I have yet to be pointed to the processes and procedures whereby the decision to make systemd a hard dependency was carried out. In Gnome 2 there were specific meetings, well documented, to discuss and decide the "blessed dependencies", but those and several other key decision-making meetings now appear to happen outside of the public infrastructure. This is to the point where there were public emails saying systemd would not become a hard dependency for gnome-3.8 and yet here we are. The Gentoo Gnome herd tried their hardest to avoid the move to systemd, and I have mentioned my appreciation for their efforts in my previous emails. I am currently exploring my options, as you reiterated my point back to me, but one of those is to not give up hope on the Gnome project or their developers and to try to communicate with them. However, having people assume I'm arguing because I'm keen to get to the bottom of their decision making doesn't help... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIG5ZQACgkQu7rWomwgFXrWVACeJakbnBmoJfYP91wOrC/EmG6W EMAAn1yZItvdNyz6AuPhcnbk9MBxcYVb =iOpy -END PGP SIGNATU
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:10:29 +0100 Mike Auty wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > > On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote: > >> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on > >> mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and > >> necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them > >> necessarily has the skills or the time to look after udev. Does > >> that invalidate their opinion on the choices of upstream project > >> they rely on? > > > > Yes, it does. > > In that situation then, developers are only developing for themselves? > What's more likely is that they've taken a gamble that most users > will simply accept their changes, which they deem as necessary to move > forward. > > That would be fine if there were alternative options, but as more and > more things are "vertically integrated" the choices made by one > project are knocking over into others. Before I could simply ignore > systemd and choose something else, now I'm having to choose between > using both Gnome and systemd, or neither. > > It is a difficult choice, but just as Gnome has chosen to forsake my > desire for a simplistic init system at the expense of a little boot > speed and some "features" I've never needed in the past, I'm having to > walk away to some other less well developed desktop environment. The > cost of ignoring their users opinions is losing the users themselves. > I don't know how many users they'll have to lose before someone > decides to take the ship in a new direction, but I would like to see > how many they stand to lose, by asking those who care to speak up and > find a way of being heard before the damage is too much to repair... You are basing yourself on too much FUD[1] which may or may not happen; the only influence you can have is as you said yourself, it sounds like that people that are deeply concerned with this should step up and start a petition[2] for this and find like minded people. Direct yourself upstream[3] or take a gamble whether to use it or not. [1]: http://www.wordnik.com/words/FUD [1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/87264 [2]: http://www.gnome.org/contact/ - -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSBtQ9AAoJEJWyH81tNOV99dAH/16/nfLiHrHlv1vv1EnUB3RQ oET5MpWIrAxEx6e1CxA5A4/eu0l79QK23DnDrDl3VAL/K2d2+tppVx24IMQeWt4H jw1+l4tm9KnNlF9WWSsehY7uoe7dIhzmOTJVTF1VfTo/DdIqiOlTya5/SraGTlkC WCJjGIqK3rHu872af2mjKxprr7UaT4mv9/VhYcjFiw+z0arXRy4F8oDGHE7VUTDZ dLknKEf3zEUoxGRSZAE+vGi1fNRKONNoNS+W0EyBSRWyFQ+DepGhH3j71tXwCgXi 9o4D+wUMFORfF1s1ZLRpUPBH2M/aFJpb5pyZP4bZQ5NqSsqXFWaW8YIUmIK5MYE= =1t6r -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Mike Auty wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: >> On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote: >>> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on >>> mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and >>> necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them >>> necessarily has the skills or the time to look after udev. Does >>> that invalidate their opinion on the choices of upstream project >>> they rely on? >> >> Yes, it does. > > In that situation then, developers are only developing for themselves? > What's more likely is that they've taken a gamble that most users > will simply accept their changes, which they deem as necessary to move > forward. > > That would be fine if there were alternative options, but as more and > more things are "vertically integrated" the choices made by one > project are knocking over into others. Before I could simply ignore > systemd and choose something else, now I'm having to choose between > using both Gnome and systemd, or neither. > > It is a difficult choice, but just as Gnome has chosen to forsake my > desire for a simplistic init system at the expense of a little boot > speed and some "features" I've never needed in the past, I'm having to > walk away to some other less well developed desktop environment. The > cost of ignoring their users opinions is losing the users themselves. > I don't know how many users they'll have to lose before someone > decides to take the ship in a new direction, but I would like to see > how many they stand to lose, by asking those who care to speak up and > find a way of being heard before the damage is too much to repair... We have been having this discussion since GNOME 3.0 came out, and some would argue that since GNOME 2.0, or even before. The GNOME project will go where the developers of the GNOME project decide to, period. There is MATE if you really want the old GNOME 2, Cinnamon if you only want something similar to the old interface, or KDE/Xfce/E17 if you want to switch. Arguing with the GNOME developers like they don't know what they are doing is pointless at best, and frankly insulting at worst. They thought deeply about the changes that are being made to the desktop, and they discussed it and reached a consensus about what the direction of the project is; you can usually read about in the mailing lists, Planet GNOME, or even watch the videos from the GUADEC presentations. You can of course disagree with that direction: but acting like they, poor things, don't know what they are doing and need that someone go an tell them so they can know "before the damage is much to repair", is quite condescending. People have been predicting the dead of GNOME since before the 1.0 version came out, but right now it has more contributors than ever in the past, and at least half a dozen companies actually pay money to people to work in it, so perhaps they actually know what they are doing. But even if they don't, there are a couple forks you can try or several alternatives you can switch to if "the damage is too much to repair". And at the end of the day, all that code is 100% Free Software, with public repositories with all the history of the components of the project for all the world to see and use. The GNOME developers already made their decision. The GNOME maintainers in Gentoo followed through (like they have been doing in almost every other distro). Now it's up to each user to decide if she keeps using GNOME (and therefore switches, if necessary, to systemd since 3.8), or if she stops using it. Arguing about it is quite useless. Regards from a (very happy, very proudly) GNOME+systemd Gentoo user. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/08/13 23:42, Wulf C. Krueger wrote: > On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote: >> I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on >> mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and >> necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them >> necessarily has the skills or the time to look after udev. Does >> that invalidate their opinion on the choices of upstream project >> they rely on? > > Yes, it does. In that situation then, developers are only developing for themselves? What's more likely is that they've taken a gamble that most users will simply accept their changes, which they deem as necessary to move forward. That would be fine if there were alternative options, but as more and more things are "vertically integrated" the choices made by one project are knocking over into others. Before I could simply ignore systemd and choose something else, now I'm having to choose between using both Gnome and systemd, or neither. It is a difficult choice, but just as Gnome has chosen to forsake my desire for a simplistic init system at the expense of a little boot speed and some "features" I've never needed in the past, I'm having to walk away to some other less well developed desktop environment. The cost of ignoring their users opinions is losing the users themselves. I don't know how many users they'll have to lose before someone decides to take the ship in a new direction, but I would like to see how many they stand to lose, by asking those who care to speak up and find a way of being heard before the damage is too much to repair... Mike 5:\ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIGyGUACgkQu7rWomwgFXpeugCeMGQmjB7tcnpZd12DF8Baml0s xcsAn12+EXQwTSwTeK0lautDxJmwgC7r =tgWV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09.08.2013 02:26, Mike Auty wrote: > I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on > mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and > necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them necessarily > has the skills or the time to look after udev. Does that > invalidate their opinion on the choices of upstream project they > rely on? Yes, it does. - -- Best regards, Wulf -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIGwcwACgkQnuVXRcSi+5qGZwCcC22pW4P93IIeHx6srfFsxkJ9 bzsAoLiEjyzBFXoaglE5uHv9giNk5B43 =Y30t -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/13 15:54, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 14:14:12 > "viv...@gmail.com" napisał(a): >> On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. > Invalid upgrade path. "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also not acceptable. >>> The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as >>> such >>> >> is systemd useful if not run with PID=1 ? Honest question > Not a honest question but either honest troll, or you're awfully lazy > and just making noise here. No really, I've tried systemd but only as init, and, since I'm not a gnome user I'm rather ignorant on it's internals. Yet gnome it's an important piece of the opensource ecosystem, and decision taken for gnome sometimes have repercusions also on different DE like kde which is my main interest. > So the answer is: yes, it's quite useful when run with PID!=1. It's > called systemd user instance (something OpenRC totally can't handle) > and it can be used to manage user services. > > But I have no idea how is that relevant since you obviously know that > the problem here requires running systemd as PID 1. I could have argued it was relevant, but again no, I didn't know for sure. My experience with systemd has only been as only init system (PID=1) even when using the (now dead?) overlay from Fabio which tried to make openrc and systemd coexist. Thanks to everyone responded
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 2013.08.07 13:45, Michael Weber wrote: > Greetings, > > Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which requires > systemd. > [snip] > >Michael > > [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478252 > -- > Michael Weber > Gentoo Developer > web: https://xmw.de/ > mailto: Michael Weber > > The Gnome team has made their choice. I'm the light of that, users can now make their own choices. That's what Gentoo is about after all ... choice. I fully support the Gnome teams choice ... now I have to make one of my own. -- Regards, Roy Bamford (Neddyseagoon) a member of elections gentoo-ops forum-mods trustees pgpav7ZqUzrXc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:51:13PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer > > wrote: > > > >> Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ... > > > > Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ... > > > Running systemd as PID=1 does imply not running openrc as PID=1 *haha* No, it implies not running init (sysvinit) or runit as pid 1. OpenRc really isn't an init system; see virtual/init for those. OpenRc is just a set of init *scripts*. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
>
>
> Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in #gentoo
> and #gentoo-desktop on the FreeNode IRC network, on the Gentoo Forums,
> on the gentoo-user ML as well as for bugs on the Bugzilla bug tracker.
>
> The people saying this is unsupported are either WISHING it was
unsupported, or they are completely uninformed (w.r.t. systemd usability on
gentoo) and are just here to express general anti-systemd sentiment. In
either case, they are not really contributing anything worthwhile to this
discussion.
People are running gnome-3.8 and systemd today, on gentoo. It's working
great for tons of people out there. We're supporting it in #gentoo and on
the forums today, with much success. If you ("people out there", not you
Tom) don't realize that yet, please pull your head out of the sand.
-Ben
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:55:03 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation > they were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported > configuration. Support for it is given all over the place; like for instance in #gentoo and #gentoo-desktop on the FreeNode IRC network, on the Gentoo Forums, on the gentoo-user ML as well as for bugs on the Bugzilla bug tracker. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:03:10 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300 > > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > >> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than > >> openrc (baselayout). > > > > Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? > > Where? > > > > You kids don't remember the past ;) > > We had lots of people experimenting with non-baselayout/OpenRC > solutions, but our support stance was always "You deviate from that, > you're on your own" - einit, monit, s6 etc. have always been options, > but never supported. So, you'll have to refer me to it; otherwise, we won't believe you. ;) > >> There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core > >> components. > > > > Neither OpenRC or systemd is selected in @system; both are optional, > > which one comes as default depends on how you obtain Gentoo. While > > there's only a stage3 for OpenRC that does not exclude the > > possibility that a stage3 for systemd may be made in the near > > future. > > Let me put it into simple words: > > Do not break my boot path. Again. > > I'm slowly reaching a zero-tolerance stance on regressions that make > booting unreliable or broken, and just replacing OpenRC is about the > worst way to trigger unexpected behaviour. Please state how your boot path has broken. Or is this hypothetical? > > Same for you, is your agenda to keep OpenRC and block any > > alternatives? > > I tolerate alternatives, but don't actively support them. We're not asking you to actively support it. > > Our agenda is to keep Gentoo what Gentoo is defined as, follow its > > philosophy and therefore do whatever is needed to provide our users > > a choice to use Gnome 3.8 in a stable manner. > > ... while still providing reasonable support and stability Which appears to be provided. > > I don't see what all this has to do with an agenda of switching to > > systemd, nobody is keeping you or anybody else from implementing or > > porting support for OpenRC into GNOME 3.8; even if this were an > > agenda, it would have been a very inefficient way to switch people > > to systemd. > > You say that as if we cared for Gnome. As you are in a thread that is deciding whether to stabilize 3.6 or 3.8, I take the assumption that you care for it; if not, I'm not sure what you are trying to reach here. > > There are a lot of Gentoo developers supporting it. > > Flashback to 2006... so it is true, the wheel keeps turning ... Support can possibly change over 7 years, for any software product. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/10/2013 01:42 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer > wrote: > >> Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ... > > Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ... > Running systemd as PID=1 does imply not running openrc as PID=1 *haha* - -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlIGKTEACgkQknrdDGLu8JB+dQEAnAxly8GBLd4h2SFj6/3NURwk AJrKeTi4SQ4GH28QyhQA/jjzc5QQVYr6XH+IKZ+ZPorLQeyfHs4GAO6t1jP6TRRa =7sZv -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:04:09 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ... Using systemd doesn't imply removing openrc ... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 14:12:42 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman > wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer > > wrote: > >> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported > >> configuration, well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state > >> is quite confusing and sends the wrong signal. > >> > > > > There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobody > > has to agree to make systemd an official supported configuration, > > because OpenRC isn't an official supported configuration either. At > > least, not in the way that the terms seems to be being used. There > > is no policy that requires packages to run when OpenRC is the > > service manager, and there is no policy that requires packages to > > supply an OpenRC init.d script. > > Gentoo, well up to now, did have a policy This is missing a reference. Where is this policy? > that packages should support the baselayout It appears to support, I don't see a problem here; what's not supported? > which was single one, no alternatives where formally supported. This is missing a reference. Where is this stated? > The fact that OpenRC is now provided as own package (technical bit) > could not have changed the policy of providing stable coherent > solution for users. Whether or not the existence of such policy, it makes me wonder: Why do you think the discussed solution is not stable or not coherent? > The fact that someone decided that init system may be virtual means > nothing if the implications of users and developers were not been > understood. Is this really the case? Where do you think it is misunderstood? > Of course it matches the gnome and affiliated vendor agenda Or perhaps Gentoo's meta-distribution agenda to provide choice? > but for that do we break the entire tree and produce extra load for > developers who maintain unrelated packages? What entire tree breakage you are talking about? I see no such thing. As stated multiple times before, there's no extra load involved; but I'll enumerate it again, it is easy to add and there are enough people that are willing to help maintain the systemd part of a package. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:50:49 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone > >> remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from > >> that?) > > > > That's a very selective perception there. If you mean the fully > > documented kdebuild-1 EAPI, > ... which was disallowed from being used in-tree, which most users > could not use without breaking their current setup ... No-one ever proposed using kdebuild-1 in the main tree. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration, >> well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing >> and sends the wrong signal. >> > > There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobody > has to agree to make systemd an official supported configuration, > because OpenRC isn't an official supported configuration either. At > least, not in the way that the terms seems to be being used. There is > no policy that requires packages to run when OpenRC is the service > manager, and there is no policy that requires packages to supply an > OpenRC init.d script. Every long lawyer like response make me re-check my sanity. The split of openrc was done by Roy in the past to be usable by other audiences, especially busybox and *bsd configurations. OpenRC is baselayout-1, just packaged in different way. Gentoo, well up to now, did have a policy that packages should support the baselayout which was single one, no alternatives where formally supported. The fact that OpenRC is now provided as own package (technical bit) could not have changed the policy of providing stable coherent solution for users. The fact that someone decided that init system may be virtual means nothing if the implications of users and developers were not been understood. Of course it matches the gnome and affiliated vendor agenda but for that do we break the entire tree and produce extra load for developers who maintain unrelated packages? Alon
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they > were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported > configuration. Since when was installing half the packages on your system a supported configuration (whatever exactly that means)? Also, I suspect the KDE team would be fairly eager to address issues in their own overlay. As far as running paludis goes, in my experience anything resembling a technical flaw tends to be addressed fairly eagerly when posted on their lists/etc, and anything else tends to be greeted with all the kinds of behavior that we're trying to get rid of around here but haven't quite managed (ie, I'm not really ready to go pointing fingers yet). > > (And I thought you were usually in favour of adhering to policies and > not doing ADHD-fuelled random let's break stuff I'm hungry hahaha) In an overlay? The whole point of overlays is allowing more ADHD-fuelled random breakage, from which we obtain new features that make the whole world better. I'm perfectly fine with PMS-compliant-only in the tree. Frankly many of the features we rely on in newer APIs derive from the cooperation of the Portage/Paludis maintainers and I think any of the Portage maintainers around here would be among the first to agree. I'm all for adhering to policy, but not to policies that aren't even written down. I'm also for getting rid of roadblocks to doing things that are new and useful. I'm all for reasonable QA, but that doesn't mean demoting non-traditional implementations to second-class citizens. As I stated in my Council manifesto I will not vote for policies that require maintainers to author systemd units, but I will sponsor policies to require maintainers cooperate with those who do. I think that is the right balance, at least until it causes a real problem (beyond theological differences like the one that keeps Debian off the FSF list of Free distros). Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 10:59 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than >> openrc (baselayout). > > Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? Where? > You kids don't remember the past ;) We had lots of people experimenting with non-baselayout/OpenRC solutions, but our support stance was always "You deviate from that, you're on your own" - einit, monit, s6 etc. have always been options, but never supported. >> There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core >> components. > > Neither OpenRC or systemd is selected in @system; both are optional, > which one comes as default depends on how you obtain Gentoo. While > there's only a stage3 for OpenRC that does not exclude the possibility > that a stage3 for systemd may be made in the near future. Let me put it into simple words: Do not break my boot path. Again. I'm slowly reaching a zero-tolerance stance on regressions that make booting unreliable or broken, and just replacing OpenRC is about the worst way to trigger unexpected behaviour. > [snip] > Same for you, is your agenda to keep OpenRC and block any alternatives? I tolerate alternatives, but don't actively support them. > Our agenda is to keep Gentoo what Gentoo is defined as, follow its > philosophy and therefore do whatever is needed to provide our users a > choice to use Gnome 3.8 in a stable manner. ... while still providing reasonable support and stability > I don't see what all this has to do with an agenda of switching to > systemd, nobody is keeping you or anybody else from implementing or > porting support for OpenRC into GNOME 3.8; even if this were an agenda, > it would have been a very inefficient way to switch people to systemd. You say that as if we cared for Gnome. [snip] > There are a lot of Gentoo developers supporting it. Flashback to 2006... so it is true, the wheel keeps turning ...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration, > well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing > and sends the wrong signal. > There is no one official supported configuration of Gentoo. Nobody has to agree to make systemd an official supported configuration, because OpenRC isn't an official supported configuration either. At least, not in the way that the terms seems to be being used. There is no policy that requires packages to run when OpenRC is the service manager, and there is no policy that requires packages to supply an OpenRC init.d script. Now, I'm all in favor of a policy that would require maintainers to accept well-maintained patches to add such support to packages that lack it, just as I support this for systemd, or really for anything else. Well-maintained of course means timely, regression-free, no burdens beyond fetching and patching, and so on. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 11:12 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:50:24 +0300 > Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > >> So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can >> this a good service for users? > > Just like we can't ensure that everything builds with LLVM doesn't mean > we shouldn't support packages that only build with GCC, neither does it > mean we can't support packages that only build with LLVM; we do our > best to aim them to build with both as a means of good service to our > users, but if it doesn't build for one of the other there's not much we > can do about that other than trying to fix. The same applies to build > systems, documentation generation, the compression used and so on > > If we didn't support alternatives, we would only have stuff in the tree > that solely supports GCC, plain Makefiles and so on; and anything that > only works with LLVM, CMake and so on would never be a part. Using llvm doesn't imply removing gcc ...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 08:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >> > > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. > Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with > OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. > >> >> Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone >> remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from that?) > > I never had a problem with it. A rare bug ;) Lots of users ran into troubles, and like in the current situation they were unable to get support as they ran an actively unsupported configuration. (And I thought you were usually in favour of adhering to policies and not doing ADHD-fuelled random let's break stuff I'm hungry hahaha)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 07:45 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >>> >>> The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc >>> support. >>> >> Invalid upgrade path. >> >> "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and >> also not acceptable. > > Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; I like it when you violently agree with me > the other ones are, and as > said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must be ran. > not must, but if I choose to run the official supported configuration, well, then telling me to go to an unsupported state is quite confusing and sends the wrong signal.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 07:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone >> remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from >> that?) > > That's a very selective perception there. If you mean the fully > documented kdebuild-1 EAPI, ... which was disallowed from being used in-tree, which most users could not use without breaking their current setup ... It lead to a fork of the overlay which in a short time absorbed almost all users, which should tell you how popular the decision of "lol don't portage" was. The difference now is that forking Gnome is not a viable option > whose features are mostly in EAPI 5 now, > then I remember Gentoo getting a lot of valuable experience that was > used to decide how to improve the package format. > And lots of good policies like "all ebuilds in-tree must work with portage", or "all ebuilds in tree must use approved EAPIs" (hello pro-gress overlay ;) )
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 10/08/13 07:03, Walter Dnes wrote: On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:27:23AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote What makes this situation so difficult is that it's not a single random package, but one of the bigger desktop environments that has painted itself into a corner. (Plus an uncooperative upstream, so all the "blame" gets thrown at the gentoo maintainers from both sides. Awesome way to destroy crew morale :) ) I don't think you realize what you're asking for. This is a lot more than just a few patches. You're effectively asking for fork of GNOME, just like eudev has forked from udev. GNOME forks already exist. Just off the top of my head... XFCE, Cinnamon, Consort, Mint, Mate, Kate, Unity, etc, etc. If you don't like GNOME, try one of them. XFCE is far from being a fork of GNOME, you must have confused something
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:27:23AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote > What makes this situation so difficult is that it's not a single > random package, but one of the bigger desktop environments that > has painted itself into a corner. (Plus an uncooperative upstream, > so all the "blame" gets thrown at the gentoo maintainers from both > sides. Awesome way to destroy crew morale :) ) I don't think you realize what you're asking for. This is a lot more than just a few patches. You're effectively asking for fork of GNOME, just like eudev has forked from udev. GNOME forks already exist. Just off the top of my head... XFCE, Cinnamon, Consort, Mint, Mate, Kate, Unity, etc, etc. If you don't like GNOME, try one of them. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 00:32:08 +0100 Mike Auty wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 09/08/13 21:32, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 03:11:55 +0800 Ben de Groot > > wrote: > > > >> On 9 August 2013 21:57, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks > >>> which really have nothing useful to do and instead spit their > >>> systemd hatred on gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their > >>> stupid vendetta. > >> > >> Please keep your insults off this list. You may want to deny > >> them, but there are valid reasons why people oppose systemd. It > >> doesn't help to keep so aggressively pushing it. > > > > Neither does it help to make statements like "People are free to > > use a saner desktop environment..." which add nothing to the > > discussion, which in fact can be seen as an insult as well; because > > "sane" basically stands for "free from mental derangement" or "free > > from being unreasonably, unsound judgment or bad sense" where both > > come close to what people will perceive as the negative form of > > "stupid". > > I'm not sure where you're quoting from, it doesn't appear to have been > the thread Ben was commenting on. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/87206 > I'm glad someone stepped in and said something, Michael's comments > appeared overly aggressive, as they would have even if the word hatred > had read agenda. I'm not sure why there were so many rebuttals of his > request to keep things civil. It wasn't a statement for or against > systemd, it was a request to maintain a hospitable environment... We're on the same line for that part. Note that I do not disagree with Ben's request, thus did not re[bf]ute; I wanted to point out why people that try to construct were annoyed. If he then makes such request it doesn't help that he did a similar thing earlier himself, therefore I am making the same request back to him. In a conflict, there are always two sides; in order to maintain a hospitable environment, both sides have to make an effort to reach that. So, both sides calling things more sane or more hateful is not civil... - -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSBYNvAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9ltgH/0wO7hjA3+cnkuZGyaqEBHN4 iQL9ZDuASegxIMkg1D4k9AZ+kZDqYPwRNL07nsvQRZNceXEtc3sOx0AeLb/pcDe7 GZHR7S30ACvo9U/Fj6Bgd/FeQulyQ4ztfUJRKBTa9JRp+iBn8Y8HuxC88MARXtTN Qaptxq1JpaOa69AvotuybH35DgW9SsiHcpQgP1j8JnU0ykev4uCk4KFpy6SwB9Sa oAFF3VLsXivZdZeh1EomtaoDngQkCCU2eAftDEwUEfDL4RQ3U1LvcztT5mn5UB6p ntgD/mHWeLPWVuLMInanet6O/8bIeaLyed6yW3OsFFkslIfzYik9vX6aGq4oKTw= =yAvQ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/08/13 21:32, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 03:11:55 +0800 Ben de Groot > wrote: > >> On 9 August 2013 21:57, Michał Górny wrote: >>> This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks >>> which really have nothing useful to do and instead spit their >>> systemd hatred on gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their >>> stupid vendetta. >> >> Please keep your insults off this list. You may want to deny >> them, but there are valid reasons why people oppose systemd. It >> doesn't help to keep so aggressively pushing it. > > Neither does it help to make statements like "People are free to > use a saner desktop environment..." which add nothing to the > discussion, which in fact can be seen as an insult as well; because > "sane" basically stands for "free from mental derangement" or "free > from being unreasonably, unsound judgment or bad sense" where both > come close to what people will perceive as the negative form of > "stupid". I'm not sure where you're quoting from, it doesn't appear to have been the thread Ben was commenting on. I'm glad someone stepped in and said something, Michael's comments appeared overly aggressive, as they would have even if the word hatred had read agenda. I'm not sure why there were so many rebuttals of his request to keep things civil. It wasn't a statement for or against systemd, it was a request to maintain a hospitable environment... Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIFe/gACgkQu7rWomwgFXr5sACeJkIl6rDKmyVdNmaQW9HupK35 s4MAn3EvU9agxaAOJI5Gf7uHUqcEJ7Mv =x6Dm -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/08/13 10:35, Tom Wijsman wrote: > Listening comes at a price; you can't listen to everyone at the > same time, all you will hear is noise because all the voices clash. > So, you've got to listen to a selective bit of users and satisfy > them; after all you can't satisfy everyone. Resources are > finite... That's exactly why I'm trying to get all the frustrated voices on the Gentoo-dev mailing list making one single concerted comment to the developers, so that they only need to listen once, and can see from the number how many people feel the same way... Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIFcToACgkQu7rWomwgFXo0UgCfXYsL4VtS2HjWDxop5+E6mFJQ 6mQAnjM6fQqDSL6xGigE0AncqyqQjIhJ =Enah -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 19:17, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:14 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote: On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote: El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: You just removed the upgrade path for users. The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. Invalid upgrade path. "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also not acceptable. The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as such is systemd useful if not run with PID=1 ? Honest question (Answering as a GNOME+systemd user since 2011). AFAIU, systemd is completely useless if it isn't running as PID 1. In particular (and the reason systemd is now a hard requirement for GNOME), logind will not work correctly (if at all) if systemd isn't PID 1. All the cgroups handling (for one) is non existent (or completely different) in OpenRC. Regards. Correct. Ubuntu has logind working without systemd but they are stuck at version 204. At systemd version 205 it became impossible to run logind without systemd. The only reason why sys-apps/systemd being installed would be useful if it isn't PID=1 (all the time) user wants to support dualboot between OpenRC and systemd, with different init='s, since the systemd-udevd can be used with OpenRC.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 03:11:55 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > On 9 August 2013 21:57, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 13:45:25 > > Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > > > >> Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; the other ones are, and > >> as said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must > >> be ran. > > > > I can think of at least a few examples where 'upgrade path' actually > > involved replacing one package with another and yet nobody complains > > about that. > > > > This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks which > > really have nothing useful to do and instead spit their systemd > > hatred on gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their stupid > > vendetta. > > Please keep your insults off this list. You may want to deny them, but > there are valid reasons why people oppose systemd. It doesn't help to > keep so aggressively pushing it. Neither does it help to make statements like "People are free to use a saner desktop environment..." which add nothing to the discussion, which in fact can be seen as an insult as well; because "sane" basically stands for "free from mental derangement" or "free from being unreasonably, unsound judgment or bad sense" where both come close to what people will perceive as the negative form of "stupid". (Of course, his message can be perceived to insult in other ways; I won't comment on those, they seem to be based on a bit of annoyance) I don't see why this needs to be done almost every time a discussion that mentions the word systemd comes up; okay, there are people that oppose to it but can't they just ignore the discussion instead of making statements that really add nothing to the actual discussion? You may perceive things are being denied and think things are aggressively being pushed; but please note the "action, reaction" concept applies here and you are perceiving the reaction to what people that oppose to systemd are irrelevantly inserting into the discussion. "A saner DE" or "unmerge GNOME" doesn't answer "stabilize 3.6 or 3.8?"; I'm not going to summarize on the rest, but a fair bit doesn't answer. As for whether to stabilize GNOME, that's the maintainer's decision; unless the maintainer is forced to do otherwise by a higher instance, see the paragraphs of "Moving package versions from ~ARCH to ARCH" in the ebuild policy [1] which mentions that it is up to the maintainer. I think that the reasoning whether to stabilize 3.6 or 3.8 has long been given; so, unless someone wants to make a remark on that alone, there's probably no need to bump this out of bounds discussion anymore. There are different approaches to request that higher instances oppose; I'm pretty sure that they are willing to deal with systemd pushers, as in those that trying to go besides community and / or council consensus. Please, give it a rest; there is too much unnecessary talk for nothing. [1]: Ebuild policy - "Moving package versions from ~ARCH to ARCH" http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1#doc_chap4_sect4 -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > It doesn't help to keep so aggressively pushing it. Neither does so aggressively pushing against it.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Dnia 2013-08-10, o godz. 03:11:55 Ben de Groot napisał(a): > On 9 August 2013 21:57, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 13:45:25 > > Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > > > >> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800 > >> Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> > >> > On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >> > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > >> > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > >> > > > >> > > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc > >> > > support. > >> > > > >> > Invalid upgrade path. > >> > > >> > "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and > >> > also not acceptable. > >> > >> Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; the other ones are, and as > >> said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must be ran. > > > > I can think of at least a few examples where 'upgrade path' actually > > involved replacing one package with another and yet nobody complains > > about that. > > > > This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks which really > > have nothing useful to do and instead spit their systemd hatred on > > gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their stupid vendetta. > > Please keep your insults off this list. You may want to deny them, but > there are valid reasons why people oppose systemd. It doesn't help to > keep so aggressively pushing it. And what does help? 143-mail thread with people crying out how bad the world goes for them? There are people actually reading this list, and if I'm insulting anyone, those people are insulting the whole Gentoo community by wasting their time and making this list less and less useful. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 9 August 2013 21:57, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 13:45:25 > Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > >> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800 >> Patrick Lauer wrote: >> >> > On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 >> > > Patrick Lauer wrote: >> > > >> > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >> > > >> > > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc >> > > support. >> > > >> > Invalid upgrade path. >> > >> > "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and >> > also not acceptable. >> >> Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; the other ones are, and as >> said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must be ran. > > I can think of at least a few examples where 'upgrade path' actually > involved replacing one package with another and yet nobody complains > about that. > > This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks which really > have nothing useful to do and instead spit their systemd hatred on > gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their stupid vendetta. Please keep your insults off this list. You may want to deny them, but there are valid reasons why people oppose systemd. It doesn't help to keep so aggressively pushing it. -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 05:22:38PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > >> > > > > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. > > Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with > > OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. > > Again, I repeat my-self. > > Please stop writing these statements! > > There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than > openrc (baselayout). Baselayout and OpenRc are two separate things. In baselayout-1 it was true that the init scripts were part of Baselayout. However, this is not the case now, since OpenRc is separated from Baselayout. > There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core components. The "core" component, that all gentoo systems are required to have, is baselayout, not OpenRc. I've been a dev since 2004, and I have never heard of a policy that mandates that everything must work with OpenRc in order to be stable. Yes, OpenRc is the default init scripts in stage 3, but that in no way implies that everything is mandated to work with it. It just means we chose that as the default. > Claiming that Gentoo can use alternate layout is same as alternate > that freebsd port is stable or that intel icc can be used as compiler. > It has broad implications, which is far from the actual component > usage or its own dependencies. What implications are those other than, in this case, providing systemd units for packages that need them? Since there is an active team of Gentoo developers that work on systemd, shouldn't they be the ones to handle those implications? > If you have the agenda to switch to systemd, and you hide your > intention in the argument of supporting multiple layouts, please do > not hide and state so clearly. As has been stated a thousand times, we are not changing the default init system to systemd. Gnome (upstream) has decided to require it, so if you use Gnome you will need to switch over, but that's it. This does not mean that the default is changing. This also does not fit the definition of a regression, since 1) we do not mandate that everything must work with OpenRc and 2) they make it clear upstream that they require systemd. > But do not claim that Gentoo with different layout than baselayout is > still formal Gentoo, and is supported by the Gentoo developers. baselayout is used on systemd systems, so nothing has changed here, and, systemd is supported by gentoo developers. It is not the default init setup, but it is fully supported. Systemd is a full citizen of gentoo. Regards, William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 16:49, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 09/08/13 15:36, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a _regression_. How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? The question puzzles me. For one it is * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system * it is the default init system in stage3 * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. baselayout-1, then later baselayout-2 and OpenRC were all created because there was an need and no suitable ready solutions systemd however is starting to look like a viable ready solution to switch to it's definately not an regression to switch to actively maintained software, it's more of an improvement because OpenRC has been stalled ever since Roy stopped hacking on it (all work put in by vapier, WilliamH, and others is of course appericiated) you know it's true if you have been with gentoo enough long wrong choice of words as someone pointed out, s/stalled/slowed down/ or even s/stalled/slowed down a bit/ it came out too harsh. sorry for the noise.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: >> Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > You just removed the upgrade path for users. > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. >>> Again, I repeat my-self. >>> >>> Please stop writing these statements! >>> >>> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than >>> openrc (baselayout). >> >> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you >> want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team >> will not support any other configuration. >> >> He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need >> to support such a configuration. > > So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can > this a good service for users? For the record, everything I use (desktop, laptop, media center, servers, etc.) uses Gentoo with systemd. Several of them doesn't have GNOME (the servers obviously don't even have X). All the "components" in my use cases (which I confess are really standard) work. In my experience, if it works in Gentoo with OpenRC, it will work with systemd (and, IMHO, sometimes better). The other way around is, obviously as per this whole thread, not true. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 14:14:12 > "viv...@gmail.com" napisał(a): > >> On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> > El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: >> >> On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 >> >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: >> >>> >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >> >>> The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. >> >>> >> >> Invalid upgrade path. >> >> >> >> "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also >> >> not acceptable. >> >> >> >> >> > The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as >> > such >> > >> > >> is systemd useful if not run with PID=1 ? Honest question > > Not a honest question but either honest troll, or you're awfully lazy > and just making noise here. > > So the answer is: yes, it's quite useful when run with PID!=1. It's > called systemd user instance (something OpenRC totally can't handle) > and it can be used to manage user services. I forgot thtat when I answered, but that requires that systemd is also running as PID 1. If I understand the question correctly (and I didn't perceived any "trollism"), it was about if you can install systemd, but run OpenRC as PID 1, and have everything working. In that case, the answer is no. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 17:40, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: On 09/08/13 15:36, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a _regression_. How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? The question puzzles me. For one it is * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system * it is the default init system in stage3 * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. baselayout-1, then later baselayout-2 and OpenRC were all created because there was an need and no suitable ready solutions systemd however is starting to look like a viable ready solution to switch to it's definately not an regression to switch to actively maintained software, it's more of an improvement because OpenRC has been stalled ever since Roy stopped hacking on it (all work put in by vapier, WilliamH, and others is of course appericiated) you know it's true if you have been with gentoo enough long At least we know what ssuominen thinks... some prople are trying to hijack the Gentoo project at the excuse of Gnome to switch into specific vendor solution, and be on its mercies from now on. This was the exact plan of whoever put all these $$ in udev/systemd/gnome/fedora and effect the entire ecosystem, and slowly own the entire solutions. As Linux userland become more and more monolithic per the plan of that vendor, and if we yield, there will be no real difference between Fedora and Gentoo, so what have we accomplished? There come the new Microsoft and conquered the free open source world using $$ and ambassadors. bleh I don't see systemd in Gentoo threatening OpenRC any more than emacs threatens vim in-tree. You can improve OpenRC so it can compete better with systemd. You can improve GNOME to work without systemd. It's really that simple and there is no agenda. And I use OpenRC mainly, and we speak and maintain software like ConsoleKit, XFCE to keep systemd away because I know people still use them. Really, why so aggressive about what the system should be? You don't have to use GNOME and systemd if you don't want -- or you can help them if you don't like the direction they are going. What we basically say is that Gentoo cannot have their own agenda and now submit to dictation of a single vendor of how Linux should be managed and run. To provide good service to our users we need a clear stand, what will developers (throughout the tree) will be maintaining. If a user installs a component he does expect it to work and maintained. And we cannot force all developers to support two different layouts, and we cannot allow developers to support layout of their choice, as users will get a totally broken solution, because of the aspirations of developer/herd they get different level of support. I don't care if systemd is worked on by people, however it must be clearly mark as unstable as long as there is no decision to switch. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:14 AM, viv...@gmail.com wrote: > On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote: >> El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: >>> On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > You just removed the upgrade path for users. The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. >>> Invalid upgrade path. >>> >>> "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also >>> not acceptable. >>> >>> >> The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as >> such >> >> > is systemd useful if not run with PID=1 ? Honest question (Answering as a GNOME+systemd user since 2011). AFAIU, systemd is completely useless if it isn't running as PID 1. In particular (and the reason systemd is now a hard requirement for GNOME), logind will not work correctly (if at all) if systemd isn't PID 1. All the cgroups handling (for one) is non existent (or completely different) in OpenRC. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 17:25:10 +0200 hasufell wrote: > No, that is definitely not how stabilization works and I was told > something different during my recruitment process. > > * _stable_ (as in... it works on different setups... this is already > not true for gnome) Current documentation and ebuild policy does not reflect the different setups bit; that is, it merely mentions that it must be widely tested but it is not clear whether that includes different setups or not. http://devmanual.gentoo.org/keywording/#moving-from-~arch-to-arch http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/handbook/handbook.xml?part=2&chap=1#doc_chap4_sect4 Even stronger, the ebuild policy mentions in the same section that "It is up to the maintainer of the package to deem which versions are stable or if development versions should be in package.mask or left in ~arch."; and in this sense, I think only instances like QA, security, *Rel and the Council stand above that. So, under strict ebuild policy, we can not block stabilization without calling one of those instances with an objection to the change; we both know that a lot of people don't really follow this anymore, but it is still written down and should be corrected if we want this to be different. I'm really surprised to find the policy to state this rule. > I don't care what people think about OpenRC or systemd. I support > BOTH. If a package only supports one, that is a BUG (and in this > case... a regression even). You keep repeating this, I'm yet to see agreement on this; so "maybe". > This is similar to gcc vs clang. Clang is not ready yet to be used > system-wide, so gcc is still our main implementation and the default > (as in: shipped in stage3). Even if clang was stable... a package > that does not compile with gcc would never be allowed to go stable. > We want it to work on BOTH compilers. The difference between systemd and Clang is that systemd is marked stable whereas Clang is not; so, you can in fact not stabilize a package because Clang as a dependency is not yet stable. The difference between OpenRC and GCC is that OpenRC is not selected in @system whereas GCC is selected in @system; so, you can replace OpenRC whereas you can't replace GCC until @system adjusts. You are comparing apples and eggs here. GCC is currently a core requirement, OpenRC is not and thus replaceable. > If you can't make that happen, then that's okay. But don't attempt to > call that package stable then. It's not. What does incompatibility have to do with stability? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:57:49 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:16:37AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote > > > > Though, an init system standard might be the most promising > > approach. > > Ahemmm http://xkcd.com/927/ Are there existing init system standards then? Isn't this the first one? Either way, it will require a lot of effort to convince people or a lot of work to get things done; whether that is by a new standard making it more easy or by writing a big set of commits for upstream to apply. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:40:28 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > At least we know what ssuominen thinks... some prople are trying to > hijack the Gentoo project at the excuse of Gnome to switch into > specific vendor solution, and be on its mercies from now on. This was > the exact plan of whoever put all these $$ in > udev/systemd/gnome/fedora and effect the entire ecosystem, and slowly > own the entire solutions. As Linux userland become more and more > monolithic per the plan of that vendor, and if we yield, there will be > no real difference between Fedora and Gentoo, so what have we > accomplished? There come the new Microsoft and conquered the free open > source world using $$ and ambassadors. As far as I am aware this discussion is not about yielding; so, there is nothing to be concerned about with the outcome of this discussion. > What we basically say is that Gentoo cannot have their own agenda and > now submit to dictation of a single vendor of how Linux should be > managed and run. Gentoo has its own agenda; but, I'm under the impression that you aren't following that agenda, instead opposing to some non-existing dictation. > To provide good service to our users we need a clear stand, what will > developers (throughout the tree) will be maintaining. Developers are free in that as long as policy, QA and security permit. > If a user installs a component he does expect it to work and > maintained. And we cannot force all developers to support two > different layouts, and we cannot allow developers to support layout > of their choice, as users will get a totally broken solution, because > of the aspirations of developer/herd they get different level of > support. We don't need to force all developers to support multiple layouts. If someone cannot support it, another developer can jump in and support it; as an end result, you don't get a totally broken solution. > I don't care if systemd is worked on by people, however it must be > clearly mark as unstable as long as there is no decision to switch. It is marked as stable; if you wish to see it unstable, you will probably want to file another thread stating the reasons why you believe it must be marked as such. The Gnome 3.8 stabilization thread we are in now is not the place to request to mark systemd unstable. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 04:57 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: >>> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you >>> want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team >>> will not support any other configuration. >>> >>> He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need >>> to support such a configuration. >> So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can >> this a good service for users? > > I am not sure what you mean by that. But every developer is free to > commit and support in Gentoo whatever package he wishes to, within > limitations set by policy. > And when a package is 30 days in tree and there is no objection from QA > or security teams then it can go stable. > > No, that is definitely not how stabilization works and I was told something different during my recruitment process. * the package must be _stable_ (as in... it works on different setups... this is already not true for gnome), no severe outstanding bugs either upstream or in gentoo (broken openrc compatibility is a severe bug) * 30 days is just a guideline, nothing more. Just following that without caring about anything else will not improve our stable branch * QA and security do not monitor every stabilization bug. the maintainer has to track those issues in the first place * reverse deps have to work I don't care what people think about OpenRC or systemd. I support BOTH. If a package only supports one, that is a BUG (and in this case... a regression even). This is similar to gcc vs clang. Clang is not ready yet to be used system-wide, so gcc is still our main implementation and the default (as in: shipped in stage3). Even if clang was stable... a package that does not compile with gcc would never be allowed to go stable. We want it to work on BOTH compilers. If you can't make that happen, then that's okay. But don't attempt to call that package stable then. It's not.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:50:24 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can > this a good service for users? Just like we can't ensure that everything builds with LLVM doesn't mean we shouldn't support packages that only build with GCC, neither does it mean we can't support packages that only build with LLVM; we do our best to aim them to build with both as a means of good service to our users, but if it doesn't build for one of the other there's not much we can do about that other than trying to fix. The same applies to build systems, documentation generation, the compression used and so on If we didn't support alternatives, we would only have stuff in the tree that solely supports GCC, plain Makefiles and so on; and anything that only works with LLVM, CMake and so on would never be a part. This isn't the Gentoo that I want to pursue; I agree that an alternative not being supported isn't a good service for "all" users, but for "some" users it is a good alternative. Let's not put those users in the dark. The support for systemd is increasing; the support for other components looks good to most of us, and those that don't work will likely work in the near future except for those that have a hard dependency on OpenRC. I'm willing to belief that the small set of software that has that kind of hard dependency can also be made supported or simply replaced. Good service in a meta distro is making alternative choices available. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: >>> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you >>> want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team >>> will not support any other configuration. >>> >>> He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need >>> to support such a configuration. >> So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can >> this a good service for users? > > I am not sure what you mean by that. But every developer is free to > commit and support in Gentoo whatever package he wishes to, within > limitations set by policy. > And when a package is 30 days in tree and there is no objection from QA > or security teams then it can go stable. This is so narrow interpretation of the policy. You talk about a process, and user do not care about the process. 30 days? and what if a user has an issue 31 days after? And what if QA decides that now systemd must be supported? so we delay stabilization? People here tend to forget that Gentoo is not just ebuilds, but also an organization which requires a policy for the sake of its *USERS*. Regards, Alon
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 17:22:38 +0300 Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than > openrc (baselayout). Was there the decision to only support a single layout on Gentoo? Where? > There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core > components. Neither OpenRC or systemd is selected in @system; both are optional, which one comes as default depends on how you obtain Gentoo. While there's only a stage3 for OpenRC that does not exclude the possibility that a stage3 for systemd may be made in the near future. Since one is replaceable by the other, it's an optional component where you can pick one or the other; neither of both is therefore a core component. You're however required to pick one of both as a core component; so, interpreted otherwise both are core components. Of course there is a huge difference, but it does not apply here. > Claiming that Gentoo can use alternate layout is same as alternate > that freebsd port is stable or that intel icc can be used as compiler. Claiming that Gentoo can only support one layout is the same as FreeBSD is unstable or that the Intel ICC can't be used as a compiler at all. > It has broad implications, which is far from the actual component > usage or its own dependencies. Implications that do not broadly affect you, as far as I am aware; if they do, please state the problems and concerns that you foresee. > If you have the agenda to switch to systemd, and you hide your > intention in the argument of supporting multiple layouts, please do > not hide and state so clearly. Same for you, is your agenda to keep OpenRC and block any alternatives? Our agenda is to keep Gentoo what Gentoo is defined as, follow its philosophy and therefore do whatever is needed to provide our users a choice to use Gnome 3.8 in a stable manner. I don't see what all this has to do with an agenda of switching to systemd, nobody is keeping you or anybody else from implementing or porting support for OpenRC into GNOME 3.8; even if this were an agenda, it would have been a very inefficient way to switch people to systemd. > But do not claim that Gentoo with different layout than baselayout is > still formal Gentoo, and is supported by the Gentoo developers. Are you sure your claim about formal Gentoo is what formal Gentoo is? http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/philosophy.xml http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml#differences A different layout is acceptable for a meta-distribution. There are a lot of Gentoo developers supporting it. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: >> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you >> want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team >> will not support any other configuration. >> >> He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need >> to support such a configuration. > So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can > this a good service for users? I am not sure what you mean by that. But every developer is free to commit and support in Gentoo whatever package he wishes to, within limitations set by policy. And when a package is 30 days in tree and there is no objection from QA or security teams then it can go stable. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:16:37AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote > Though, an init system standard might be the most promising approach. Ahemmm http://xkcd.com/927/ -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 9 August 2013 20:20, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: >> Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > You just removed the upgrade path for users. > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. >>> Again, I repeat my-self. >>> >>> Please stop writing these statements! >>> >>> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than >>> openrc (baselayout). >> >> I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you >> want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team >> will not support any other configuration. >> >> He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need >> to support such a configuration. > > So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can > this a good service for users? What do you mean by "any other component" here? -- Arun Raghavan http://arunraghavan.net/ (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: You just removed the upgrade path for users. >>> Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. >>> Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with >>> OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. >> Again, I repeat my-self. >> >> Please stop writing these statements! >> >> There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than >> openrc (baselayout). > > I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you > want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team > will not support any other configuration. > > He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need > to support such a configuration. So users will have gnome working but not any other component? How can this a good service for users?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Alon Bar-Lev schrieb: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >>> >> Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. >> Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with >> OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. > Again, I repeat my-self. > > Please stop writing these statements! > > There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than > openrc (baselayout). I think there may be a misunderstanding here. He only said that if you want to run Gnome 3.8, then switch to systemd. Because the Gnome team will not support any other configuration. He did not say that everyone should install systemd, nor that you need to support such a configuration. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 09/08/13 15:36, hasufell wrote: >> >> On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd > and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a _regression_. >>> >>> >>> How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? >> >> >> The question puzzles me. For one it is >> * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system >> * it is the default init system in stage3 >> * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to >> make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It >> doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. > > > baselayout-1, then later baselayout-2 and OpenRC were all created because > there was an need and no suitable ready solutions > systemd however is starting to look like a viable ready solution to switch > to > it's definately not an regression to switch to actively maintained software, > it's more of an improvement because OpenRC has been stalled ever since Roy > stopped hacking on it (all work put in by vapier, WilliamH, and others is of > course appericiated) > you know it's true if you have been with gentoo enough long > At least we know what ssuominen thinks... some prople are trying to hijack the Gentoo project at the excuse of Gnome to switch into specific vendor solution, and be on its mercies from now on. This was the exact plan of whoever put all these $$ in udev/systemd/gnome/fedora and effect the entire ecosystem, and slowly own the entire solutions. As Linux userland become more and more monolithic per the plan of that vendor, and if we yield, there will be no real difference between Fedora and Gentoo, so what have we accomplished? There come the new Microsoft and conquered the free open source world using $$ and ambassadors. What we basically say is that Gentoo cannot have their own agenda and now submit to dictation of a single vendor of how Linux should be managed and run. To provide good service to our users we need a clear stand, what will developers (throughout the tree) will be maintaining. If a user installs a component he does expect it to work and maintained. And we cannot force all developers to support two different layouts, and we cannot allow developers to support layout of their choice, as users will get a totally broken solution, because of the aspirations of developer/herd they get different level of support. I don't care if systemd is worked on by people, however it must be clearly mark as unstable as long as there is no decision to switch. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >> > > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. > Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with > OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. Again, I repeat my-self. Please stop writing these statements! There was no decision to support Gentoo using any other layout than openrc (baselayout). There is *HUGE* difference between optional components and core components. Claiming that Gentoo can use alternate layout is same as alternate that freebsd port is stable or that intel icc can be used as compiler. It has broad implications, which is far from the actual component usage or its own dependencies. If you have the agenda to switch to systemd, and you hide your intention in the argument of supporting multiple layouts, please do not hide and state so clearly. But do not claim that Gentoo with different layout than baselayout is still formal Gentoo, and is supported by the Gentoo developers. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 13:45:25 Tom Wijsman napisał(a): > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > > > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > > > > > > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc > > > support. > > > > > Invalid upgrade path. > > > > "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and > > also not acceptable. > > Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; the other ones are, and as > said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must be ran. I can think of at least a few examples where 'upgrade path' actually involved replacing one package with another and yet nobody complains about that. This one is *so special* just because we have a few folks which really have nothing useful to do and instead spit their systemd hatred on gentoo-dev@ and expect others to join their stupid vendetta. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Dnia 2013-08-09, o godz. 14:14:12 "viv...@gmail.com" napisał(a): > On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: > >> On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > >>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>> > You just removed the upgrade path for users. > >>> The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. > >>> > >> Invalid upgrade path. > >> > >> "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also > >> not acceptable. > >> > >> > > The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as > > such > > > > > is systemd useful if not run with PID=1 ? Honest question Not a honest question but either honest troll, or you're awfully lazy and just making noise here. So the answer is: yes, it's quite useful when run with PID!=1. It's called systemd user instance (something OpenRC totally can't handle) and it can be used to manage user services. But I have no idea how is that relevant since you obviously know that the problem here requires running systemd as PID 1. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 15:36, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a _regression_. How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? The question puzzles me. For one it is * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system * it is the default init system in stage3 * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. baselayout-1, then later baselayout-2 and OpenRC were all created because there was an need and no suitable ready solutions systemd however is starting to look like a viable ready solution to switch to it's definately not an regression to switch to actively maintained software, it's more of an improvement because OpenRC has been stalled ever since Roy stopped hacking on it (all work put in by vapier, WilliamH, and others is of course appericiated) you know it's true if you have been with gentoo enough long
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 14:31, Patrick Lauer wrote: On 08/09/2013 06:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a _regression_. How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? Gentoo isn't OpenRC. OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. You can run Gentoo without it - indeed you can run Gentoo without any init at all (via Prefix). You just removed the upgrade path for users. Upgrade with an requirement of reading a guide to finish it is still an upgrade. This became possible thanks to Portage news items, but I don't count that as mandatory either. If that's not a regression ... well ... err ... Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from that?) ...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:36:05 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? > > The question puzzles me. For one it is > * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system But systemd is an implementation of that as well; isn't it sufficient that only one implementation satisfies it to run GNOME 3.8, and that the others implementations are blocked until supported? > * it is the default init system in stage3 What if the default were systemd? It would be a whole different story. Nothing prohibits a systemd stage3 from being brought out as well; and when that happens, it isn't really a default but rather a choice... > * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want > to make/keep it a usable tool. Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo devs; that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree support that system, making it an usable tool for everything is unrealistic especially in a world where people will pursue alternatives and not collaborate. There's nothing bad about them doing that, we can't satisfy everyone; if we were, we wouldn't even have systemd in tree... > If we can't, then there is a regression. If I tried to make something support that system, but failed to, and the develpers fail as well; I see that as a failure and we decide to not support each other, unless resources become available to do so. An attempt to support, which follows by a decision to not support it; is not a regression, it's a design choice to move forward. > It doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame. Making such a design choice isn't a fault. There is no need for blame. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 11:40:58AM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote > It may be pertinent for this reason (a "smoother" upgrade path) and > this reason alone, to stabilize gnome-3.6 first -- just to get into > gnome3 (and get gnome-2 removed) without having to also deal with the > systemd migration at the same time. If you've followed the user mailing list, you'll know that I'm not exactly a systemd fanboi, and as per my sig, I don't have any stake in this battle. But if you want to do a 2-step switch to GNOME 3.8, then why not... 1) switch from openrc to systemd first 2) once you have that working, then worry about upgrading to GNOME 3.8 -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 12:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >>> It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd >>> and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. >> >> We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been >> dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a >> _regression_. > > How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? The question puzzles me. For one it is * an implementation of virtual/service-manager which is in @system * it is the default init system in stage3 * OpenRC is developed by gentoo devs, which means we especially want to make/keep it a usable tool. If we can't, then there is a regression. It doesn't matter whose fault it is. This is not about blame.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > You just removed the upgrade path for users. > Just install systemd. There really isn't any practical alternative. Gentoo with systemd is as Gentooish a configuration as Gentoo with OpenRC, or Gentoo with libav, or Gentoo with emacs. > > Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone > remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from that?) I never had a problem with it. I would have concerns with non-PMS EAPIs in the main tree, but overlays can do whatever they want. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/13 13:38, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: >> On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >>> On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 >>> Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> You just removed the upgrade path for users. >>> The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. >>> >> Invalid upgrade path. >> >> "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also >> not acceptable. >> >> > The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as > such > > is systemd useful if not run with PID=1 ? Honest question
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:37:26 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone > > remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from > > that?) > > That's a very selective perception there. If you mean the fully > documented kdebuild-1 EAPI, whose features are mostly in EAPI 5 now, > then I remember Gentoo getting a lot of valuable experience that was > used to decide how to improve the package format. Not sure how this is still relevant to the Gnome 3.8 stabilization; Patrick's example brought some irrelevant matters to mind, but what this really is about as he intended is a "QA violation". He just clarified in the other thread as well as on IRC that by this QA violation he means that there is no proper upgrade path; so, I no longer see any use in that example as it has became clear without it. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:39:08 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > > > > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc > > support. > > > Invalid upgrade path. > > "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and > also not acceptable. Your upgrade path is no longer an upgrade; the other ones are, and as said before, running Gentoo has no implication that OpenRC must be ran. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 19:39 +0800, Patrick Lauer escribió: > On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > > > > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. > > > Invalid upgrade path. > > "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also > not acceptable. > > The upgrade path is to run systemd, not migrate to fedora. As simply as such
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone > remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from > that?) That's a very selective perception there. If you mean the fully documented kdebuild-1 EAPI, whose features are mostly in EAPI 5 now, then I remember Gentoo getting a lot of valuable experience that was used to decide how to improve the package format. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 07:26 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > >> You just removed the upgrade path for users. > > The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. > Invalid upgrade path. "The upgrade path is to install Fedora" is about as reasonable, and also not acceptable.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 19:31:22 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > You just removed the upgrade path for users. The upgrade path is to install systemd or to implement openrc support. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 06:27 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: >> On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >>> It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd >>> and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. >> >> We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been >> dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a >> _regression_. > > How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? Gentoo isn't > OpenRC. OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. You can > run Gentoo without it - indeed you can run Gentoo without any init at > all (via Prefix). You just removed the upgrade path for users. If that's not a regression ... well ... err ... Somehow I get really confused by this selective perception (anyone remembering the KDE overlay getting paludised and the fallout from that?)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 11:30:17 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > > It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd > > and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. > > I could claim the "design choice" thing for anything as well. That's the whole point about it; because it is their (upstream) design choice, it is not a regression for them. So, the only one here claiming it now to be a regression is you; let's get back to the link you gave http://blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2012/08/22/when-you-should-block-a-stabilization/ which mentions some types in an example 1) builsystem issue 2) ebuild issue 3) means specific software problem but does not actually define what a regression is; so, because the lack of downstream definition all we can do is follow what upstream does, alternatively discuss this to death but that would be bike shedding. Anyone here can claim here that it is a regression or design choice, but nobody can actually prove it because of the lack of a definition; so, we should just resort to what upstream intends to do in this case. Even assuming the types as a definition, a "specific software problem" is again free for interpretation; so, it doesn't properly define it. > Actually blender upstream does that for the brokenness of their build > system. Now what? I just stop fixing it? Maybe, but then I will > definitely not stabilize it. We're not talking about brokenness here, rather about intents; please note that users in the first place choose for a package because of what upstream intends, there is no obligation for you to keep it unstable because upstream made the design choice to remove a certain use case. If we had to stop stabilization for every use case in the tree that was removed, we wouldn't have any recent version of anything stabilized; why should GNOME 3.8 be an exception to this, I really don't see why... > It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a > _regression_. I could state that the exact opposite easily; so, here it is: It _was_ a major feature, therefore it can not be a regression. It does not matter for Gentoo or its users. Without a definition or consensus, such statements are meaningless. > You see, I am not criticising the work of the gnome team, only the > stabilization matter. I personally don't care about gnome, but about > our policy to a certain extend. > > And I feel our policy is being violated here. Not sure which policy you are referring to; all I am reading are merely opinions, that don't stabilization without any consensus. > Not because you ignore it, but because you disagree. I disagree with you, I do not disagree with any policy; if so, which? > But none of your arguments make any logical sense to me why this > regression should be treated differently. As far as I am aware; there are two sides to this so I can state the exact same that I don't see any logical sense in what you say, so I can just say that you're trying to treat it differently too. There isn't even an agreement that this is an actual regression. > "Upstream does..." is _never_ a reason to say a regression is a > feature. > > It is a reason to not support it in stable arch or even not > at all, depending on the case. Why not? Those reasons are merely your opinions; without evidence or argreement, you can't say it is or isn't. It might or might not be... Let's await for that to decide whether this is a regression, before we start reasoning; otherwise we would be basing ourselves on assumptions. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 12:22 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn escribió: [...] > Ok so we have these options: > > 1. keep systemd as hard dependency (current) > 2. IUSE="+systemd" or "openrc-force" with ewarn when set to unsupported state > 3. #2 + systemd in package.use.force, can be unforced via profile or manually > 4. #2 + openrc-force in package.use.mask, can be unmasked by the user > > In any case, a user running Gnome without systemd will have to take extra > actions that acknowledge that his configuration is unsupported. > > Question is, which solutions are acceptable to the Gnome team? :) > > > Best regards, > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > I vote for the openrc-force in package.use.mask, relying on people unmasking it locally after knowing what problems will hit: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=480336 The systemd USE flag issue is already being worked in: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479986
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:30 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: >> It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd >> and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. > > We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been > dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a > _regression_. How does not supporting OpenRC matter for Gentoo? Gentoo isn't OpenRC. OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. You can run Gentoo without it - indeed you can run Gentoo without any init at all (via Prefix). > > You see, I am not criticising the work of the gnome team, only the > stabilization matter. I personally don't care about gnome, but about our > policy to a certain extend. And I feel our policy is being violated > here. Not because you ignore it, but because you disagree. I don't see any policy being violated here. If I did, I'd be happy to ask that it be changed. The Gnome team already plans to issue news/docs/etc so that stable users don't get sidegraded or whatever you want to call it without warning, and so that they understand the full implications of upgrading to 3.8. Once users do move to 3.8, they're going to have a nice stable experience, just with a different init system. That's basically what stable is about IMHO. Sure, systemd isn't completely supported by every package in the tree with unit files/etc, but that has been steadily improving and all indications are that this trend will continue. Missing unit files are also relatively easy for users to fetch on their own (and hopefully submit back to us in bugs) - one of the main advantages of systemd is that unit files are more cross-platform and there are examples floating around for just about everything already. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Pacho Ramos schrieb: > This makes me think what is the problem with people moving to systemd as > udev provider (even running openrc) :/ You can't use eudev in that case. > 2. About the other one: probably somebody adding systemd to > package.provide *on purpose* will remember to know that he needs a > device manager (either udev or eudev) and don't let depclean remove > it :| package.provided is dangerous, and users better avoid it if there is an alternative way to achieve the same thing. > Other possible solution would be the following: > 3. Add a "openrc-force" USE flag to offending packages. This USE flag > would be masked in all profiles, needing users to unmask it locally (the > packages would warn about it when enabling and so) Ok so we have these options: 1. keep systemd as hard dependency (current) 2. IUSE="+systemd" or "openrc-force" with ewarn when set to unsupported state 3. #2 + systemd in package.use.force, can be unforced via profile or manually 4. #2 + openrc-force in package.use.mask, can be unmasked by the user In any case, a user running Gnome without systemd will have to take extra actions that acknowledge that his configuration is unsupported. Question is, which solutions are acceptable to the Gnome team? :) Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 11:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn escribió: > Pacho Ramos schrieb: > >> If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept > >> ebuild > >> patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? > >> Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome > >> team > >> supports. > > > > We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we > > don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working > > properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling > > I don't say that it should be the default. > > > Also, if that people reports problems, we would > > close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd > > That's what I meant when I wrote not a configuration that Gnome team supports. > > > - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving > > from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd > > as device manager > > - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev > > The good part about package.provided is that users definitely know that they > are running an unsupported configuration with it. The bad part is that > putting systemd in package.provided is a bit dangerous, as this can lead to > udev unmerge on depclean if you are not careful. > This makes me think what is the problem with people moving to systemd as udev provider (even running openrc) :/ 1. The first solution (moving to systemd as udev provider) would be "easy" and would behave as bad as openBSD does (having the unsupported and mid working setup) 2. About the other one: probably somebody adding systemd to package.provide *on purpose* will remember to know that he needs a device manager (either udev or eudev) and don't let depclean remove it :| Other possible solution would be the following: 3. Add a "openrc-force" USE flag to offending packages. This USE flag would be masked in all profiles, needing users to unmask it locally (the packages would warn about it when enabling and so)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 01:26:08 +0100 Mike Auty wrote: > I would like to think that open source developers working on such a > large and integral project might listen to their users. Listening comes at a price; you can't listen to everyone at the same time, all you will hear is noise because all the voices clash. So, you've got to listen to a selective bit of users and satisfy them; after all you can't satisfy everyone. Resources are finite... - -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSBLfqAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9ng4IAIIZwecBzyvZT+5fsHN9aT4z xzdIS+HDqsXzyBnxmHMK1HNgDCW3hEc+subJtOih9uKZrwGwFjAF/pWstNsCZ1sw 1U1Z/vN1vOiP/WbkhaKo5AvsMBLWENLTDeXuJF8QUDOuMVUlJ2/nSKwkyGQaK2pA 1qijdGBmqK4+LwmaUtSIAQEYsUTPaPW1lE7+aFycxELzYRCg74Tve3j7QOPDP9c2 sivyU+89dX59w3I2EQG63ZGntYt2XJ3kEui7VXApY6Z8h0tGq2oVm6qtpc9cPJ0n 0XhQqfhE7eGzXerO0WG3+5h7SipqDC9R3NeSlipChs1Mqy9j53RAe7geGyT1Egg= =G3RF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 08/09/2013 09:36 AM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: > It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd > and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. I could claim the "design choice" thing for anything as well. Actually blender upstream does that for the brokenness of their build system. Now what? I just stop fixing it? Maybe, but then I will definitely not stabilize it. We are not just talking about random ebuild features here that have been dropped. It's a MAJOR feature. And it _matters_ for gentoo. So it IS a _regression_. You see, I am not criticising the work of the gnome team, only the stabilization matter. I personally don't care about gnome, but about our policy to a certain extend. And I feel our policy is being violated here. Not because you ignore it, but because you disagree. But none of your arguments make any logical sense to me why this regression should be treated differently. "Upstream does..." is _never_ a reason to say a regression is a feature. It is a reason to not support it in stable arch or even not at all, depending on the case.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Pacho Ramos schrieb: >> If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild >> patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? >> Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome team >> supports. > > We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we > don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working > properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling I don't say that it should be the default. > Also, if that people reports problems, we would > close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd That's what I meant when I wrote not a configuration that Gnome team supports. > - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving > from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd > as device manager > - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev The good part about package.provided is that users definitely know that they are running an unsupported configuration with it. The bad part is that putting systemd in package.provided is a bit dangerous, as this can lead to udev unmerge on depclean if you are not careful. > But we (gnome team) cannot support that setups and, then, we prefer to > point people to run the supported one (with systemd running), keeping > the other "alternatives" for people that will be able to live with a > semi broken desktop and don't expect us to fix their bugs and fight to > upstream because XX thing doesn't work out of systemd. We agree on the following I think: * If you install Gnome, then systemd should be installed along with it by default. * Gnome team can ignore any reports of breakage on systems that don't run systemd. The remaining question is only whether you will accept patches to ebuilds that make the systemd dependency optional. If you are too concerned about invalid bug reports, even a new profile could be created. systemd could then be package.use.force'd in the base profile and only un-forced in a special gnome-nosystemd profile, which contains a profile.bashrc warning (like from the server profile) that tells users to not report any bugs about Gnome. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:27:23 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > [snip] > >> So would you stabilize a package that works with paludis, but not > >> with portage? Ouch. It should probably not be in the tree in the > >> first place, but I that's not what I have in mind here. > > > > This isn't a good example, because the PMS compliance governs over > > this. > > > > It is an excellent example. If it doesn't work with portage that's a > QA-failure and reason to mask until fixed. As PMS is incomplete and > often not reflecting reality it's not a good baseline. So, this can also be interpreted as masking Portage until it is fixed; there is no implication that the package not working with Portage is a QA failure of the package, as it might be Portage having a PMS failure which the package. This is not an excellent example, it is confusing... I do not argue that packages get masked due to QA failures; but I don't see how GNOME 3.8 only working with systemd, is to be a QA failure? So, unless you come with a better example and show it is a QA failure, I won't see what meaning this confusing example has in this discussion. > >> I generally expect packages to work with... now be surprised... > >> BOTH init systems, although I don't like systemd. If it doesn't > >> work with one, then it's a bug. Bugs block stabilization. > >> It is a _REGRESSION_. Ask the arch team about the meaning of > >> regression if unsure. > > > > It's not a regression; actually, it's quite common to drop features > > that can no longer be supported. I don't see us blocking > > stabilization for other cases in the Portage tree where a feature > > has been dropped. > > It is a regression: If it doesn't work with OpenRC I can't use it > (same with portage), and thus it deserves a liberal dose of bugs and > masking if bugs don't get fixed on time. It doesn't intend to work with OpenRC; so, it is not a regression. Regression testing is done to test whether functionality broke, functionality that is specified as requirements of the package; as OpenRC is no longer a requirement, it can not be a regression. There are also no bugs as a result of that, or at least not in the terms of those that need fixing; they are rather a feature request. > What makes this situation so difficult is that it's not a single > random package, but one of the bigger desktop environments that has > painted itself into a corner. It's better for them to be vivid in a corner than for them to dry out; the situation might or might not be interpretable as difficult, either way things are the way things are and it's not so easy to change. > (Plus an uncooperative upstream, so all the "blame" gets thrown at > the gentoo maintainers from both sides. Awesome way to destroy crew > morale :) ) Why should upstream do additional work, causing them extra time, keeping them back from progressing; there is much more work they need to do than to support an alternative init system some minority uses. If we can't write up the patches to make it work, why can they; they need to do the equal amount of work that we do. For this to happen some big initiatives are needed; ranging from trying to really convince upstream people to do the work, or convincing downstream people to jump in and help port it to work with the alternative init system. Until either of that happens; upstream won't really see the need and downstream won't be able to provide a patch, so "uncooperative" people upstream and "blame" downstream are just normal things. What we're really missing is enough people that want to make it happen; which means, they give up part of their time to it that they could perhaps invest in something else that might be more necessary. Though, an init system standard might be the most promising approach. -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Le jeudi 08 août 2013 à 21:03 -0500, William Hubbs a écrit : > The decision to depend on systemd for part of its functionality is with > gnome upstream, not the gnome team of Gentoo. > > Pacho wrote a good summary of what is going on. I can see why OpenBSD > would provide the missing functionality of systemd for gnome (systemd > does not, and will not, exist on the *BSDs). Someone could provide the > missing functionality of systemd so that gnome could run without > systemd, or they could provide patches to gnome upstream to make sure it > works without the need for systemd. > > I suggest that if you really want to keep this going, convincing gnome > upstream that running without systemd is still important is the way to > go, not taking it out on the Gentoo gnome team, and the best way to > convince gnome would probably be to provide patches. > > All of the complaining and taking it out on our gnome team is not > productive. Asking our gnome team to carry downstream patches is also > not productive, because they would end up being forced to update these > patches against every new gnome release. > > It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd > and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. > > The community doesn't need to decide whether systemd can go stable; > The community would only need to decide if we switch the default init > system to systemd. No one is proposing this. +1 We, the gnome team, did our best to delay this dependency by talking to upstream submitting patches, etc. But as many have written already, not all of gnome upstream cares as they decided Gnome should be monolithic now. This is not our decision but we still have to handle the consequences. For the record we did and still do support setups that upstream does not care about. * In the past, we had policykit/polkit optional, we had to stop that since it is now too tied in to be decently maintained at our level * We had pulseaudio optional, again, this is now over in some of the core components of Gnome, but we do keep it optional were possible * We maintain networkmanager and bluetooth support optional, and this has been the case since 3.2 iirc even though upstream flat out refuses to merge our perfectly fine patches Keeping systemd optional in Gnome cannot be achieved by the Gentoo Gnome team. If someone comes up with a solution to have logind without systemd, we will gladly include it but remember that a few devs (4/5 afaik) already tried and sadly failed. So until there is an alternative, Gnome 3.8 is going stable as the gnome team decided because it provides the best Gnome 3 experience yet. Gnome 3.6 is almost one year old and unsupported, Gnome 2 is over 4 years old and should already have left the tree but we didn't do so because we wanted our users to have a decently stable desktop to work with, whatever it is made of. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue Gentoo signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 08:29 +0300, Samuli Suominen escribió: > On 09/08/13 03:25, Michael Weber wrote: > > Citing from Pachos blog, > > > > "[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly > > run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are > > lost, [...]" [1]. > > > > Pacho, would you accept patches and USE flags to make gdm an optional > > component to gnome virtual? Power management is not crucial for window > > management. > > > > [1] > > http://my.opera.com/pacho/blog/2013/07/24/gnome-3-8-requiring-systemd-on-gentoo > > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=242750 > > Quoting: > > "Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2008-10-19 15:13:07 EEST > > Currently, I am mainly (there are other apps that I prefer not install > in all systems but adding a USE flag for each of them would be excesive) > using gnome-light instead of gnome ebuild because I don't want to > install vinagre and vino in my systems and, in some of them, I don't > install evolution (bacause users that will use affected system use > thunderbird instead of evo) > > I have seen that there are already USE flags for these apps in > /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc : > evo - Adds support for mail-client/evolution > vnc - Enable VNC (remote desktop viewer) support > > Then, I seems reasonable (at least for me) use this global USE flags for > not forcing people to install evolution and vnc related apps > > Thanks a lot" > > ;-) > > Please open a *new* bug suggesting this change -> I agree with it, but needs to be considered by the rest of gnome team :) Thanks
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 02:25 +0200, Michael Weber escribió: > Citing from Pachos blog, > > "[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly > run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are > lost, [...]" [1]. > Pacho, would you accept patches and USE flags to make gdm an optional > component to gnome virtual? Power management is not crucial for window > management. > > [1] > http://my.opera.com/pacho/blog/2013/07/24/gnome-3-8-requiring-systemd-on-gentoo > I would use gnome-light virtual instead (gnome meta will be kept pulling gdm as gnome session will behave in some kind of "fallback mode" when gdm is not being used to login in (for example, the user switching will change)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
El vie, 09-08-2013 a las 02:26 +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn escribió: > Pacho Ramos schrieb: > > - openBSD is simply supplying the "semibroken" Gnome stuff running with > > their setup (without multiseat working, neither power management, gdm > > service handling, and any new issues that could rise from logind not > > being running) > > If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild > patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? > Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome team > supports. > > > Best regards, > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > We have discussed this some times in the team, the problem is that we don't think we should provide "by default" a setup that is not working properly: powermanagement, multiseat support and gdm service handling are the more noticeable problems and the known ones... but there could be more problems (for example, I remember to have lots of dbus rejection messages from gnome-session and gnome-shell that I never was able to know what was causing). Also, if that people reports problems, we would close them as WONTFIX -> migrate to systemd (and expect them to not try to lie us and causes us to break our heads thinking about what could be causing their strange problem) Anyway, you can still run it in the "openBSD" way: - You can ignore the warnings, news and suggestions and, even moving from udev to systemd ebuild, keep booting with openRC and using systemd as device manager - You can put systemd in package.provides to even keep running udev But we (gnome team) cannot support that setups and, then, we prefer to point people to run the supported one (with systemd running), keeping the other "alternatives" for people that will be able to live with a semi broken desktop and don't expect us to fix their bugs and fight to upstream because XX thing doesn't work out of systemd.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On 09/08/13 03:25, Michael Weber wrote: Citing from Pachos blog, "[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are lost, [...]" [1]. Pacho, would you accept patches and USE flags to make gdm an optional component to gnome virtual? Power management is not crucial for window management. [1] http://my.opera.com/pacho/blog/2013/07/24/gnome-3-8-requiring-systemd-on-gentoo http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=242750 Quoting: "Pacho Ramos gentoo-dev 2008-10-19 15:13:07 EEST Currently, I am mainly (there are other apps that I prefer not install in all systems but adding a USE flag for each of them would be excesive) using gnome-light instead of gnome ebuild because I don't want to install vinagre and vino in my systems and, in some of them, I don't install evolution (bacause users that will use affected system use thunderbird instead of evo) I have seen that there are already USE flags for these apps in /usr/portage/profiles/use.desc : evo - Adds support for mail-client/evolution vnc - Enable VNC (remote desktop viewer) support Then, I seems reasonable (at least for me) use this global USE flags for not forcing people to install evolution and vnc related apps Thanks a lot" ;-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> It's not a regression; actually, it's quite common to drop features >> that can no longer be supported. I don't see us blocking stabilization >> for other cases in the Portage tree where a feature has been dropped. > > It is a regression: If it doesn't work with OpenRC I can't use it (same > with portage), and thus it deserves a liberal dose of bugs and masking > if bugs don't get fixed on time. Not supporting OpenRC is specified behavior, in this case. Bugs are by definition unspecified behavior. If it isn't a bug, it isn't a regression. In any case, the whole point of having a stable tree is to provide a service to users (including devs) who want to run a set of packages that have been tested by others. Gnome 3.x fits that bill, even if it doesn't work with OpenRC. Who benefits from keeping it unstable, let alone masking it? This isn't a project where we have to exterminate anything that offends our sense of aesthetics. If somebody does an emerge -puD world and sees systemd show up in the list, and doesn't realize what that means (or be willing to learn it the hard way), they probably should stick with Ubuntu. Gentoo has some packages that don't work with Openrc, or Portage, or FreeBSD, and likely even Linux. In the future it will probably have more of them. That's why we say that we're about choice. Would I like to see optional Openrc support in Gnome? Sure. Will I see it? Well, maybe someday if the FreeBSD folks or others put a lot of work into it. If somebody wants to maintain it they should be welcome to do so. However, somebody has to do the work. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
The decision to depend on systemd for part of its functionality is with gnome upstream, not the gnome team of Gentoo. Pacho wrote a good summary of what is going on. I can see why OpenBSD would provide the missing functionality of systemd for gnome (systemd does not, and will not, exist on the *BSDs). Someone could provide the missing functionality of systemd so that gnome could run without systemd, or they could provide patches to gnome upstream to make sure it works without the need for systemd. I suggest that if you really want to keep this going, convincing gnome upstream that running without systemd is still important is the way to go, not taking it out on the Gentoo gnome team, and the best way to convince gnome would probably be to provide patches. All of the complaining and taking it out on our gnome team is not productive. Asking our gnome team to carry downstream patches is also not productive, because they would end up being forced to update these patches against every new gnome release. It is not a regression if a new version of gnome mrequires systemd and does not work with OpenRc; it is a design choice. The community doesn't need to decide whether systemd can go stable; The community would only need to decide if we switch the default init system to systemd. No one is proposing this. Thanks for your time, William Hubbs Gentoo Developer and Council Member signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Pacho Ramos schrieb: > - openBSD is simply supplying the "semibroken" Gnome stuff running with > their setup (without multiseat working, neither power management, gdm > service handling, and any new issues that could rise from logind not > being running) If OpenBSD can do it, then Gentoo can do it, too. So would you accept ebuild patches that make it possible to install Gnome 3.8 without systemd again? Only make it possible, not turn it into a configuration which the Gnome team supports. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/08/13 00:19, Greg KH wrote: > Become upstream developers and create fixes to remove the > dependancy either by working on openrc features to emulate the same > things that systemd has that GNOME requires, or split things out of > GNOME so that it does not require systemd dependencies. > > But to complain to upstream without providing patches is a bit > futile, don't you think? That's not how open source projects work, > we all know that. > > greg k-h > I would like to think that open source developers working on such a large and integral project might listen to their users. The way open source is supposed to work is that people write something, and if it's good people use it, and if it's not they don't. I would very much like to have seen systemd succeed, but based on its own merits, whereas it seems to have been accepted by being championed at certain distributions, made indispensable to desktop environments like Gnome, and by dropping the responsibility of developing udev in favour of developing systemd. I have heard the systemd developers say that no one has been forced to use systemd, and that in the open source world, if I don't like something I can write something different. That's a wholly selfish perspective, each and every person that contributes to open source does so in their own way, and we're entirely dependent upon each other to make the community and choices as vibrant as they are. I could be a KDE developer, or a Gentoo documenter, or work on mplayer. All those people are open source contributors and necessary ones, but that doesn't mean that any of them necessarily has the skills or the time to look after udev. Does that invalidate their opinion on the choices of upstream project they rely on? There are certain key projects (like the kernel, glibc and udev) which nearly every system has come to rely upon and, I believe, with that reliance comes responsibility. I wouldn't expect Linus to just one day and walk away to go developing a new kernel he thought was better, but he could. If he did though, I would expect him to leave infrastructure in place behind him to look after the project he made which people all over the world now depend upon, and I'd continue using that until his new kernel had proved its worth. I certainly wouldn't expect him to use his natural monopoly to force his new idea on everyone! I'm not trying to hinder advancement, the trying out of new ideas is what open source is all about. We've got source-based distributions because someone wanted to see if it would work, it did and there's a good community around it. However, that hasn't come at the cost of binary distributions, they both co-exist peacefully and people use whichever one they want. I don't have the skills to make a difference, so all I can do is vote with my feet. Even after sticking with Gnome 3 through its early phases, I don't think I can continue using it at this point and I am investigating alternatives, one of which is to try to remind the Gnome developers, if not the systemd ones, of why UNIX succeeded even with such a distributed development base; it was not because of enforced uniformity... Mike 5:\ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIENyAACgkQu7rWomwgFXrv9wCdGHA4IhltnJBSt/2uY1XP6Xcs QM4AoKS2V5AWgfD+EAeyE43Jm1hwRaVT =DcNA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Citing from Pachos blog, "[...] we are now forcing people to *run* systemd to be able to properly run Gnome 3.8, otherwise power management and multiseat support are lost, [...]" [1]. Pacho, would you accept patches and USE flags to make gdm an optional component to gnome virtual? Power management is not crucial for window management. [1] http://my.opera.com/pacho/blog/2013/07/24/gnome-3-8-requiring-systemd-on-gentoo -- Michael Weber Gentoo Developer web: https://xmw.de/ mailto: Michael Weber
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
[snip] >> On 08/08/2013 05:26 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> OpenRC is just one init system that Gentoo supports. Gentoo does >>> not require the use of OpenRC any more than it requires the use of >>> portage as the package manager. >> >> So would you stabilize a package that works with paludis, but not with >> portage? Ouch. It should probably not be in the tree in the first >> place, but I that's not what I have in mind here. > > This isn't a good example, because the PMS compliance governs over this. > It is an excellent example. If it doesn't work with portage that's a QA-failure and reason to mask until fixed. As PMS is incomplete and often not reflecting reality it's not a good baseline. >> I generally expect packages to work with... now be surprised... BOTH >> init systems, although I don't like systemd. If it doesn't work with >> one, then it's a bug. Bugs block stabilization. >> It is a _REGRESSION_. Ask the arch team about the meaning of >> regression if unsure. > > It's not a regression; actually, it's quite common to drop features > that can no longer be supported. I don't see us blocking stabilization > for other cases in the Portage tree where a feature has been dropped. > It is a regression: If it doesn't work with OpenRC I can't use it (same with portage), and thus it deserves a liberal dose of bugs and masking if bugs don't get fixed on time. What makes this situation so difficult is that it's not a single random package, but one of the bigger desktop environments that has painted itself into a corner. (Plus an uncooperative upstream, so all the "blame" gets thrown at the gentoo maintainers from both sides. Awesome way to destroy crew morale :) )
Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/08/13 22:06, Pacho Ramos wrote: > Anyway, are you sure openRC is better than systemd for desktop > systems (for deserving the effort to keep maintaining consolekit, > that is currently orphan, cgroups stuff and any other things I am > probably forgetting now) ? In that case, if you decide to try to > suggest that to upstream, I would try to contact with Ubuntu/Debian > guys, openBSD maintainer and Solaris one (Brian Cameron I think) I'm not, systemd may be excellent for desktop systems, and for binary systems that can build it once and have it work fine it may fit the use case perfectly. I do believe that openrc is a more reliable init system (not least because, after having tried to swap to systemd, I was presented with a kernel panic and no rescue shell, which realized all my fears immediately). Cgroups, and other new features may be excellent, but I'm not in so much of a rush that I can't have things that need them started from a small reliable init, rather than instead of it. Thanks for your suggestions, I know the Gnome Gentoo guys and lxnay have tried hard to maintain the option of not using systemd, and I really appreciate all the hard work you guys put in. I'm more disappointed in Gnome itself for failing to be happy at being a great Desktop Environment, and instead dictating the rest of my operating system requirements for me... Mike 5:\ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlIENSQACgkQu7rWomwgFXr4zQCfejaFh0R2Dslx07E9zOeZT1mc IKwAnRsZwH7CHDoxHbIhk32g7SNn3O+A =kRAJ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
